President Barack Obama walks off of Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 6, 2013, after returning from a Democratic retreat in Annapolis, Md. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Days before President Barack Obama outlines his agenda for the coming year, a think tank with close ties to the White House is outlining a plan that would provide preschool for all children within five years.

The Center for American Progress proposal, released Thursday, provides a road map for how the Obama administration could move forward with pre-kindergarten programs for all 3- and 4-year-olds. For families with younger children, federal subsidies for child care would increase to an average $7,200 per child and the number of students in Early Head Start programs would double.

"We're trying to ensure all children are ready to learn when they get to school," said Neera Tanden, the president and CEO of the think tank and a former top policy official in the Obama administration. "Investing in early learning and pre-K is the best investment that we can make. The return on investment is significant."

Education Department officials, including Secretary Arne Duncan, have signaled that pre-kindergarten programs would be a priority during Obama's second term. The Center for American Progress has been an influential partner for the White House in fleshing out its policies. Think tank officials say they don't know what precisely will be in Obama's State of the Union speech on Tuesday, but seldom does the organization move too far or too quickly ahead of White House priorities.

Under the center's plan, Washington would match states' spending on these preschool programs for 3- or 4-year-olds at an average rate of $10,000 per child — enough to cover full-day programs. The program would be phased in over five years, starting first with low-income students who, studies show, benefit the most from pre-kindergarten programs.

Children ages 3 and 4 would be eligible to attend preschool for free if they come from a family of four earning $46,100 or less. For families making more than that, the rates would be adjusted based on income.

The price tag for the plan is not small: Over a 10-year period, it would cost $98.4 billion for preschool, $84.2 billion for child care subsidies and $11.5 billion for Early Head Start — a total of almost $200 billion. Once the program was up and running, it would cost nearly $25 billion a year — $12.3 billion for preschool, $10.5 billion for child care subsidies and $1.4 billion for Early Head Start.

But given the fierce debate on spending and debt — especially among Republicans — that kind of spending would probably meet resistance in Congress even if Obama embraced it as a blueprint.

"This is an area where you have a challenge in the political timeline. Early learning is an investment when you get the returns in 10 or 20 years," Tanden said. "What we do have in the arena of early learning is the hard data that shows the actual return on investment."

For instance, a child who does not have early childhood education is 25 percent more likely to drop out of school, 40 percent more likely to become a teenage parent and 70 percent more likely to be arrested for a violent crime.

Closer to the kitchen table, the proposals have an economic resonance. The average family with two parents working and with children younger than 5 spends roughly a one-tenth of the income on child care. For families making less, that percentage climbs quickly.

In the think tank's outline, states could partner with public school districts, charter schools, Head Start programs or child care agencies — a concession that could win over Republicans who want more options for parents.

The plan would double the number of families making $46,100 or less who receive child care subsidies, from 22 percent to 44 percent.

Currently, the average subsidy is about $5,600 annually — far short the actual cost of caring for these infants and toddlers. The proposal would have federal tax dollars cover 75 percent of the subsidy program and take the annual amount to about $7,200. States would be left to pick up the rest.

That part of the proposal would cost the federal government an estimated $84.2 billion over its first decade.

The proposal also would increase the number of students in Early Head Start programs from 120,000 to 240,000. That piece of the plan would cost $11.5 billion over its first 10 years.

I paid for my children to attend a church preschool also as a single mom. I never even knew about the state-paid program, but found out because all the tennis moms I knew (whose husbands earn really good money) had put their kids in day care (they called it pre-K, but it was at a day care facility) just so they could play all day. I did some checking into it and found out the state approved day cares near me all had multiple violations of state codes, things like leaving cleaning chemicals where children could reach them. There was NO WAY I would warehouse my kid in one of those facilities. And it makes me furious that the moochers won't take responsibility for their own kids' preschool. I will never vote for any politician who redistributes wealth in this way.

I see this as a much better investment than many of the social programs out there for adults. By doing this, we are investing in a child's education. Hopefully, the early start on an education will have an impact on the long term success of the child and reduce the number of adults dependent on the government for help.

Yeah, everything is "for the children." In reality, this is a government warehousing program the nanny state can't wait to institute. They have more years to get their hands on your little ones. You think it will REDUCE adults dependent on the state? You are so very wrong.

Next thing you know, they'll make it mandatory that kids attend preschool.

Our kindergarten teachers already expect children to be reading when they arrive in their classrooms, a huge change in just the last few years.

John Galt

|

February 07, 2013

I just hope that in five years China will still lend us money to pay for this program as well!

You call it preschool, I called it daycare, because that is what it was. I paid for it as a single mom, got my child through and now you want to hand it over to others and let us pay for someone else's children. I make more so I pay more taxes to pay even more for those parents who won't work, must less work two jobs like I did. Obama's proposal is ridiculous. He wants to level the playing field for the child regardless of the parents that go above and beyond. Socioeconomics will still exist in the school and those same little darlings get free tutoring, scholarships based on color, and every other free hand out. Federal mandates never equal the funds received at the local districts. In fact, FTE isn't even earned on special needs students in a pre-k program in the local school districts but the law says to serve them. I am tired of paying for everyone else's child. If you want your child to have equal, get out of your pajama pants and go work for it. If you can't raise your children, let someome who will love them and provide for them raise them.

*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides